• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bush-Era Debate: Using G.I.’s in U.S.

Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

Scorpion89 said:
No the District doesn't fall under Posse

From Section 8,

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;
Click to expand...

You're wrong. Any law, act, or whatever that protects American citizens applies to those American citizens that live in The District of Columbia.
 
Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

apdst said:
You're wrong. Any law, act, or whatever that protects American citizens applies to those American citizens that live in The District of Columbia.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't look dude you have no idea what your talking about trust me on this one. The District is controlled by Congress you know they make up the Cities Budget, I suggest you go back and read what I posted the next page back.

Better yet here you go Sir care to retrack your statement or you going to say that US Constitution is wrong.

The Posse Comitatus Act — forbidding civilian police work by the U.S. military — did not apply to Washington, D.C., because it is the federal district directly governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17).
 
Last edited:
Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

apdst said:
You're wrong. Any law, act, or whatever that protects American citizens applies to those American citizens that live in The District of Columbia.
Click to expand...

This is not necessarily true.
 
Harshaw said:
What are you "speechless" about? Perhaps you should look at Waco, 1993.
Click to expand...
You'll be accused of having Clinton on the brain. :lol:
 
apdst said:
Where'd that come from? There's not a single post on this thread condoning, proposing, suggesting, nor hinting that the United States military should be used to arrest American citizens.

Obviously, the OP was another case of BDS, but only managed to put a feather in Bush's cap. They thought it up, they debated it, they decided against it. And, the problem is?
Click to expand...
PeteEU runs around, out of his league a lot, here. Pay him no mind.
 
Odd. I searched for this subject and I didn't find it before; sorry for the duplicate.

Ethereal said:
Since when did you care about the US Constitution?
Click to expand...

Since when did you care about the US Constitution? After all, you are the one who defended unjust restrictions on Constitutional rights here (though it's not as though we didn't already realize that you're not a libertarian). :shrug:

At any rate, the Constitution as a document is irrelevant; the defenses against police state tactics that it could offer are far more relevant and would be if enshrined in any document or legal code.

TheNextEra said:
Criticizing him for considering it is kind of silly.
Click to expand...

It certainly would be. Good thing I didn't do that, right? :2wave:
 
Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

RightinNYC said:
This is not necessarily true.
Click to expand...

Care to cite a case where American citizens, living in D.C. weren't protected under United States law?
 
Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

apdst said:
Care to cite a case where American citizens, living in D.C. weren't protected under United States law?
Click to expand...

(U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17)
 
Re: Report: Bush mulled sending troops into Buffalo

Scorpion89 said:
(U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17)
Click to expand...

Um, that's a no-go. Let's see some legal precedence supporting you and RNYC's point of view; not your interpretation of the Constitution. I know how big you are on supporting your comments, so I won't have to wait long. Thanks in advance.
 
apdst said:
Care to cite a case where American citizens, living in D.C. weren't protected under United States law?
Click to expand...

apdst said:
Um, that's a no-go. Let's see some legal precedence supporting you and RNYC's point of view; not your interpretation of the Constitution. I know how big you are on supporting your comments, so I won't have to wait long. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

"Precedent," not "precedence."

It's really not debatable that the District of Columbia is a separate entity than the rest of the states. There is no state government, so all of its laws have to be specifically passed by Congress. That's why Heller, the most recent gun case, was decided separately from other state cases.

If you want an example of where federal law included a carve-out for DC, look no further than the Bonus March, cited by Scorpion in this very thread.

The Posse Comitatus Act — forbidding civilian police work by the U.S. military — did not apply to Washington, D.C., because it is the federal district directly governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17).
Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army]Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
RightinNYC said:
"Precedent," not "precedence."

It's really not debatable that the District of Columbia is a separate entity than the rest of the states. There is no state government, so all of its laws have to be specifically passed by Congress. That's why Heller, the most recent gun case, was decided separately from other state cases.

If you want an example of where federal law included a carve-out for DC, look no further than the Bonus March, cited by Scorpion in this very thread.



Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

You're saying that the attack on the bonus army was legal, because it took place in D.C.?
 
apdst said:
You're saying that the attack on the bonus army was legal, because it took place in D.C.?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the Posse Comitatus Act doesn't apply in DC.
 
Councilman said:
Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
Click to expand...
Note:
...except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress...
Click to expand...

The Constitution grants the President the power, as Commander in Chief, to use the military to protect the United States and its people.
Taking down terrorists falls under that.
 
Oftencold said:
1. The option wasn't used.

2. The time may come when it needs to be. Or would you rather send municipal police into a situation where they'd be mowed down?

3. Life's tough, and sometimes tough choices need to be made.
Click to expand...
rather send municipal police into a situation where they'd be mowed down
a A bit of an exaggeration here me thinks! " Let us be serious here these baggobas were not a unit of terrorists ready to fight the police much less the military. An FBI /ATF / Federal MARSHALLS would have been plenty. Bwana Cheney the quintisential Chicken HAWK JUST WANTED TO GET HIS JOLLIES OFF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom